Thank you - very interesting point of view. And reasonable as well. May be not as a main reason, but as additional - for sure
What about a naval guns? It looks like this reason will not work well for naval artillery- is not it?

Thank you - very interesting point of view. And reasonable as well. May be not as a main reason, but as additional - for sure
What about a naval guns? It looks like this reason will not work well for naval artillery- is not it?

That is a very good point. First thing i would say that in naval artillery chained balls played a very important role, and in this case a spherical round makes more sense than an elongated one.

Other than that, a fin stabilized, streamlined projectile might have had benefits in terms of accuracy, range and penetration. After penetrating the ship walls the bouncing around of an elongated body would have been as lethal as that of a ball.
One explanation is that the idea was never really developed because naval engagements tended to happen at short range and with volley fire; so it would not have been a decisive tactical advantage.
Another possibility is that nobody never really thought about it.

For me, this is closer guess. History of inventions have a lot of examples when simple things just didn't come to anybody's mind.

But I have a good question also: why all (or most?) early guns (in Europe and Asia) are breach-loaded? Is it most logical way or else?
Why it was changed to muzzle-loading later - it is understandable. But why not from beginning?

Correct. The tolerances required to build a reliable breech loader came with the industrial revolution. You can, with a lot of craftsmanship, build a non leaking and safe breech loader, I suppose, but the process, I guess, would be excruciatingly long and delicate. The gun would be difficult to repair, every gun would have been a little different than the others etc.

Correct. The tolerances required to build a reliable breech loader came with the industrial revolution. You can, with a lot of craftsmanship, build a non leaking and safe breech loader, I suppose, but the process, I guess, would be excruciatingly long and delicate. The gun would be difficult to repair, every gun would have been a little different than the others etc.

Exactly! But there is where my question comes from: Why first guns were breach-loading, if it is not technologically possible to create it? Why not muzzle-loading from beginning? For me - it should be logical to create muzzle-loader first.

Exactly! But there is where my question comes from: Why first guns were breach-loading, if it is not technologically possible to create it? Why not muzzle-loading from beginning? For me - it should be logical to create muzzle-loader first.

The popularity of early breachloading guns seems to have mainly had to do with the fact that they could more easily be reloaded in fairly tight spaces such as aboard a ship before they started figuring out how to make better compact gun carriages and rope systems that made it easier to quickly wheel the gun in and out of it's porthole for reloading. I have yet to find anything from the period that indicates people at the time ever considered breach loading guns inherently superior to muzzle loading guns or had a noticibly higher rate of fire.

Cyprian Lucar in his 1588 appendix briefly mentioned that when firing a "chambered piece" (breachloader) you should be careful about where you stand because the wedge hammered in to keep the breach in place sometimes had a tendency to fly back out and cause serious injuries.

More practical? From modern point of view? Yes. But in 14 CE? How they understood it?
This is interesting - where this idea comes from in ancient times? The transferring from breach- to muzzle- loading in 16-17 century is clear and understandable (You have provided a good explanation above). Transferring from muzzle- to breach-loading in 19 CE is also clear and understandable.
The question is -How the idea of breach-loading appears in 14 CE? How it was developed- from what? From ancient fireworks? Flamethrowers? Muzzle-loaded guns? Spear- throwers?

Another point- how much time somebody need to understand that his own invention is failed/not working properly? For me it is weeks, months, maximum a year. So why this technology existed for few centuries? Why everybody copied it and produced in numbers? Despite obvious disadvantages?

The popularity of early breachloading guns seems to have mainly had to do with the fact that they could more easily be reloaded in fairly tight spaces such as aboard a ship before they started figuring out how to make better compact gun carriages and rope systems that made it easier to quickly wheel the gun in and out of it's porthole for reloading. I have yet to find anything from the period that indicates people at the time ever considered breach loading guns inherently superior to muzzle loading guns or had a noticibly higher rate of fire.

I believe that guns first appears on land, than were moved to sea- so limited space on ship is of less important factor. May be the fact, that first guns on ship/fortress was swivel guns/ fixed mount guns (due to its low caliber/recoil)? Easy reloading definitely the
main advantage of breach loading. But my question is remains: Why the story of guns STARTED from breach-loading?

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.